She, mother nature, kind and cruel, is the boss…

Archive for October, 2012

Why is former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher now remembered as a conservative MP by so many people who were around at the time, when her views were actually liberal on so many things, especially social issues?

“This woman is a progressive, a firebrand Member of Parliament: one of only a handful of MPs to support Leo Abse’s bid to legalise homosexuality, or to vote in favour of David Steel’s Bill to legalise abortion.”

“Her first act as Prime Minister, on her very first day in office, was to increase the wages of rank-and-file police officers. Over ten years, she raised NHS spending in real terms – up thirty-two percent. Social security spending – up thirty-two percent. Employment and training spending – up thirty-three percent. And she paid for it all with a ‘Robin Hood Tax’, by taxing North Sea Oil at ninety percent – something that is too left-wing these days even for the Labour party frontbench these days.”

“As Prime Minister, she toughened guideline sentencing for rape; put extra money into the NHS for tackling breast cancer and cervical cancer; and hugely expanded the numbers of women both in work, and at university.”

“Yes, well, TRAV, now they have dug up Jimmy Savile they can bury the ‘Asian’ groomers, cant they”

It should be obvious to anyone that because the Daily Mail anger about the Moslem ‘rape gangs’ was misdirected against paedophiles to avoid discussing race, the media have now successfully used allegations about a dead man to detract from racial issues altogether.

Isn’t it convenient for the multicult that these fresh allegations surfaced just when they did? After all they can’t try his corpse in court if he does turn out to be guilty.

“I do agree, very much, that we like to think of ourselves as moral, but we want it on the cheap. We want to be able to have free sex, abortion on demand, put our career ahead of our children, even abandon them to total strangers in daycare. We put our elders in nursing homes, knowing that there are many cases of abuse. Women, in particular, once had a clear responsibility beyond earning money. We have abandoned that responsibility, trying to delegate it to men, government, strangers, the tax payer and the school room. We refuse to examine the clear consequences of these choices BUT we want to think well of ourselves. So, we say the right things, demand others support the right causes, and wear the appropriate ribbon of the day to display our virtue. Yeah, we are way too moral. We no longer know the meaning of the word.“

In this piece by W.F. Price of The Spearhead explains why Cultural Marxists – the kind most likely to be radical atheists preaching the famous ‘secular agenda’ – aren’t genuine sceptics because they persist in clinging to a quasi-religious belief in socially approved, personally satisfying articles of faith, or ‘pretty lies’.

Like Germany’s most famous philosopher, F.W. Nietzsche, W.F. Price sets out to demonstrate the origins of today’s anti-Christian fundamentalism in theological make-believe: “Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.”

Several people have noticed that the radical left infiltrated and took over atheism, claiming to represent all atheists as they imposed a ridiculous, dualistic ‘church vs state’ paradigm and slammed the door on dissenting viewpoints about subjects like homosexuality, reproductive rights and, indeed, feminism. (Just compare the contents of the first and second versions of the Humanist Manifesto to see the difference for yourself.) For example, many people are surprised to hear that around a third of atheists are now anti-abortion, because this isn’t what the secular-left lobby wants people to hear.

Is the time now overdue for a wall to separate equality and the state?

“Today, that idea, which is a religious belief just like Transubstantiation and the Trinity, has become THE article of faith of the “secular” progressive West. Without it, the liberal democratic worldview collapses immediately.

Atheism and skepticism may be considered a common feature of the enlightened secular progressive, but if we are to be honest, there’s an inherent conflict between skepticism and this concept of equality, because it is in fact a religious belief.

So when feminists demand that skeptics and Atheists pay homage to equality, they are demanding that they make an act of faith, and believe in something that can’t be proven. It would be akin to Catholics saying “you know, you can keep calling yourselves skeptics, but you’re going to have to make a statement confirming the resurrection of Jesus Christ or we’re going to start doing really unpleasant things to you.” Actually, the feminists take a it a step farther, in that they demand not only that skeptics “believe” in what they want them to, but also that they stack their ranks with at least as many believers as skeptics.”

I’ve been reading Peter Frost’s old posts on Evo and Proud after trying to find the right one so I could send a link to someone, and another post caught my eye because Frost demonstrates the difference in perspective between two people of different backgrounds towards the same problem.

Likewise with his piece I linked to about China and the Ottoman Empire being ‘stalled’ – it was intuitive to me that most societies as organisms would have been better off had the west also been stalled long ago in some way. Its interesting that his choice of word seemed to imply a perception of the Turkish and Chinese as backwards due to some failiure to launch, when I intuitively recognised in the same data proof that the west began to collapse through the absence of equivalent, appropriate controls.

Reading this I was reminded of Napoleon’s observation that men will fight more for their interests than for their rights – why else would anyone treat the growth of ‘bare branches’ as a problem, if we’re now living under what Crowley referred to as a pig system? What exactly is in our present civilisation for someone like me? I can only assume that Peter Frost himself must be more of a beneficiary of the existing system than those agitated males with far less stake in society, young males from a background far closer to mine?

Why on earth would anyone bother to preserve or sustain something so odious as the modern west, like some life-support machine? Why would anyone attempt to fix the irreparable, when the hope of collapse, thorough cleansing, and rebirth exists just around the corner?

“So what is to be done? One problem is getting our intellectual and political elites to react. I suspect one reason they don’t is that many are beneficiaries of the existing system, i.e., older men who have remarried with younger women. Our elites are also generally committed to social libertarianism, this being now true as much for the political right as it is for the political left.

I used to be something of a libertarian. No longer. The sexual marketplace does not function like the marketplace of goods and services. Increasing the demand for young single women will not increase the supply. Nor will this market failure go away if “losers” attend special seminars or get special coaching. Nor will it go away on its own. This is a real problem and one that will likely get worse. Yes, if nothing is done we will have a society where marriage is unattainable for over one third of all men.

What would I recommend? First, if we’re going to extend the sex ratio at birth to the age of 50 and beyond, we should try to keep it as close to parity as possible. The least coercive way would be to pay surrogate mothers to have daughters who would then be put up for adoption. Given the number of people who wish to adopt, this would pose no problem. Is this playing God? Perhaps. But we began playing God by cutting male mortality to levels that had never before existed.

Second, we should tighten divorce laws. No-fault divorce would be allowed only when both spouses request it or when there are no children. Otherwise, one would have to show just cause and child custody would normally be split 50:50.

Third, polygynous men should be publicly identified. While polygyny itself would not be criminalized, the public would be free to discriminate against such men in employment and housing. Repeat offenders would be barred from most forms of social assistance. In this, the goal would be to return such men to the margins of society where they belong.

And if we do nothing? “Let them eat porn?” The social costs may be greater than we think. A surplus of single males tends to make societies less stable and more prone to violence (Pedersen, 1991). Such individuals are likelier to agitate for war or revolution, since they have little stake in the existing order. This is a subject that has attracted notice with the so-called ‘bare branches’ of China and India, yet similar regions of ‘bare branches’ are also becoming noticeable throughout the Western World, particularly outside major cities.“

Don’t we know a song about what happens next, boys and girls?

“Until all is said and done
When the stream of blood has all yet run
When silent darkness covers this land
Of swallen rubble that once did stand
Now forever gone to the forgotten
No epitaph for all that was simply rotten.” – Blood Axis, Storms of Steel